4.5 Article

Netrin-G2 dysfunction causes a Rett-like phenotype with areflexia

期刊

HUMAN MUTATION
卷 41, 期 2, 页码 476-486

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1002/humu.23945

关键词

areflexia; developmental delay; netrin-G; NTNG2; Rett; RTT-like

资金

  1. Pinchas Borenstein Talpiot Medical Leadership Program
  2. Netherlands Scientific Organization Zwaartekracht [NWO 024.003.001]
  3. European Commission [ERA-PerMed2018-127]
  4. Israel Science Foundation [2023/14]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We describe the underlying genetic cause of a novel Rett-like phenotype accompanied by areflexia in three methyl-CpG-binding protein 2-negative individuals from two unrelated families. Discovery analysis was performed using whole-exome sequencing followed by Sanger sequencing for validation and segregation. Functional studies using short-hairpin RNA for targeted gene knockdown were implemented by the transfection of mouse cultured primary hippocampal neurons and in vivo by in utero electroporation. All patients shared a common homozygous frameshift mutation (chr9:135073515, c.376dupT, p.(Ser126PhefsTer241)) in netrin-G2 (NTNG2, NM_032536.3) with predicted nonsense-mediated decay. The mutation fully segregated with the disease in both families. The knockdown of either NTNG2 or the related netrin-G family member NTNG1 resulted in severe neurodevelopmental defects of neuronal morphology and migration. While NTNG1 has previously been linked to a Rett syndrome (RTT)-like phenotype, this is the first description of a RTT-like phenotype caused by NTNG2 mutation. Netrin-G proteins have been shown to be required for proper axonal guidance during early brain development and involved in N-methyl-d-aspartate-mediated synaptic transmission. Our results demonstrating that knockdown of murine NTNG2 causes severe impairments of neuronal morphology and cortical migration are consistent with those of RTT animal models and the shared neurodevelopmental phenotypes between the individuals described here and typical RTT patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据